Re: [codec] possible issues to track

I am thinking that we really ought not have a requirement for joint
encoding.  Instead it would be better to have quality requirements for
multi-channel.  If a codec candidate achieves better quality though joint
encoding, then that is great.  If it achieves the desired quality through
independent channel encoding, than that is fine also.

Ideally, we should avoid creating requirements that force candidates to use
specific technology or techniques.  I think its better if we stick with
defining the quality, delay, birates, etc that is needed for the
application.

Stephen Botzko

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> wrote:

> Thanks Ben, my understanding had come from a discussion with Jean-Marc and
> some others involved in that discussion a few days back, apologies if that
> misrepresented consensus on this topic.
>
> Jean-Marc, can you discuss your thoughts with respect to joint channel
> coding?
>
> Ben, how would you approach channel counts larger than 2? Joint coding
> between any two L-R pairs, with other channels (like the center channel)
> left singular?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 3/25/10 3:01 PM, "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael Knappe wrote:
> >> we need to decide if we will support any kind of joint channel
> >> coding (current consensus so far is to keep all channels separable).
> >
> > Could you clarify this?  I think we've had several discussions where
> > people wanted jointly coded (i.e. non-separable) stereo.
> >
> > --Ben
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>